Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (252805)	9/27/2005 12:45:01 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570742

But personally I believe Saddam would never have invaded Kuwait if he had received a clear message from us that no way we would let him get away with that. This reminds me of something I think about occassionally. In terms of history, it may have been a better approach for the rest of the world to let Saddam have Kuwait in 1990, then after a few years let him invade Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, and THEN go in and kick his butt, but replace the monarchies of those countries with local democratically elected officials. This way Saddam would have been the bad guy that forcibly removed all these "royal family" clowns, and the UN/coalition/whatever, could be the good guy that frees the people of the region from the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein, but doesn't put the old guard (who are the source of much of the ME's prblem) back in control. Just an idea. It's kind of hard to mesh GB's "promotion of freedom and democracy" ideas with the fact that we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and reinstalled an unelected, undemocratic royal family (who are also dictators in their own right).

To: Taro who wrote (252805)	9/27/2005 2:48:30 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570742

re: But personally I believe Saddam would never have invaded Kuwait if he had received a clear message from us that no way we would let him get away with that. Supposedly, at the time, we lead him to believe that we would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait (don't ask for a link as that's from memory and several years old; take it for what it's worth). re: On the same note I believe it would be a serious mistake to turn our back to the Middle East to such an extent that they believe radical Muslims have any chances to win the world and destroy our way of life by terror. How are they going to "destroy our way of life by terror"? There have only been two foreign terrorist attacks on US soil, both by the same guy (not the guy we got). There have been far more terrorist attacks by US citizens; do you think those are going to "destroy our way of life by terror"? re: In my opinion it is our damn duty to let them know again and again, that any such serious effort would have dearest consequences for them and what they value most on Earth. So we go after bin Laden's worst enemy in the middle east? And we create a country with the highest frequency of terrorist attacks ever, anywhere. None of this makes any sense, you must realize that. John